logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.10.18 2016가단308674
보험금
Text

1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 29, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant as follows (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the introduction of an insurance solicitor B affiliated with the Defendant’s insurance agency.

The name of insurance product: (Unauthorized) Amphphus Guarantee Insurance Policy 1407: The insured period of the Plaintiff: The beneficiary of death insurance from August 29, 2014 to August 29, 2052: the content of guarantee for the insured: KRW 1 million under the basic contract (general injury injury) and KRW 1 million for the death of general injury, KRW 50 million for the death of disease, and KRW 50 million for the death of disease.

B. However, around June 23, 2014, C, the insured of the instant insurance contract, was already confined to the main prison. Accordingly, the instant insurance contract was made in the name of B’s agent without the consent of the insured at the time of conclusion.

C. After that, on December 14, 2015, the insured C died of the closure of the Main Prison C, and the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay KRW 50 million of the death insurance amount due to the instant insurance contract, but the Defendant refused to pay the insurance amount on the ground that the said insurance contract is null and void.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 6, Eul Nos. 1 through 8, Eul No. 12, witness Eul's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion argues that the Plaintiff, as the insured C of the instant insurance contract died of a disease, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff, a beneficiary of the said insurance contract.

The defendant asserts that the insurance contract of this case is null and void pursuant to Article 7321 (1) of the Commercial Act, so there is no obligation to pay insurance money.

B. Article 731 (1) of the Commercial Code provides that "any insurance contract the death of another person as an insured event shall obtain the written consent of the other person at the time of conclusion of the insurance contract.

arrow